The Effects of the Ban on Crime




 
--
The Effects of the Ban on Crime
 
February 22nd, 2007  
5.56X45mm
 
 

Topic: The Effects of the Ban on Crime


The Effects of the Ban on Crime
The agencies responsible for reporting crime and recordable statistics associated with crime agree. Crime rates have not improved as a result of the 1994 ban, nor could they be expected to, given the infrequency in which these firearms are used in crime. Supporters of the ban present statistics that they claim show the ban "works". From bradycampaign.org:
In 1999, the National Institute of Justice reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first calendar year after the ban took effect, dropping from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Over the same time period, gun murders declined only 10% and trace requests for all types of guns declined 11 percent, clearly showing a greater decrease in the number of assault weapons traced in crime.
It should be noted that, even though the above paragraph stealthily attempts to imply that the ban reduced crime, if you read it carefully, you see that this is not the case (more on this below). Brady Campaign also fails to mention the wealth of other very significant information present in this same report that all but invalidates their assertion. For example, with regards to the accuracy of using BATF, the report states:
These data are limited because police agencies do not submit a trace request on every gun they confiscate. Many agencies submit very few requests to BATF, particularly in States that maintain gun sales databases (such as California). Therefore, tracing data are a biased sample of guns recovered by police. Prior studies suggest that assault weapons are more likely to be submitted for tracing than are other confiscated firearms. [emphasis added]
In other words, law enforcement agencies submit trace requests on only a small percentage of firearms used in crime, and the unique appearance of "assault weapons" makes them much more likely to be submitted for a BATF trace compared to, say, a common revolver. So, according to this report, BATF trace data is not valid for this type of study. But, because it is the only available national statistic on types of guns used in crime, the researchers had little choice but to use it (with the disclaimer quote above, conveniently omitted by gun control advocates).
Furthermore, consider the following:
...it appears that, at least in the short term, the grandfathered assault weapons remained largely in dealers’ and collectors’ inventories instead of leaking into the secondary markets through which criminals tend to obtain guns... offenders could replace the banned guns with legal substitutes or other unbanned semiautomatic weapons to commit their crimes.
This is a critical point that completely offsets Brady's assertion that the ban has had any effect on gun-related crime. Grandfathered firearms (known as "pre-bans") cost significantly more than their "post-ban" near-equivalents; in some cases, new-in-box or mint condition pre-ban AR-15 style rifles can sell for more than double the retail price of post-bans (which aren't exactly cheap either). Disregarding the inaccuracy of trace requests as a reliable statistic, common sense says a decrease in the use of these particular firearms in crime is exactly what would be expected. Why would a criminal go through the hassle and expense of trying to obtain a banned "assault weapon" if there were plenty of other guns that would do the job just as well and were freely available? And, of course, on top of all this, "assault weapons" were very rarely used in crime even before the ban.
Here is an analogy to help illustrate this point. Suppose an organization decides it does not like people driving, for example, Honda Civics that have all sorts of radical body modifications and attachments (spoilers, hood scoops, etc.), giving these cars a sporty, racy look. While these features are primarily cosmetic in nature, some people just don't like the way these cars look, convinced that only the most reckless and irresponsible drivers own them, and manage to get the local government to ban the manufacture of any new automobile with a race car-like appearance. For the people who like these cars, the ban has the effect of turning them into collector's items virtually overnight, and prices skyrocket. Because of this, and because no new ones are being produced, there are not nearly as many of them available to the average person... most are securely locked away in collectors' garages.
February 22nd, 2007  
5.56X45mm
 
 
After a few years, the group that called for the ban gathers statistics on speeding tickets and accidents, which naturally reflect the effects of the ban, showing a reduced number of traffic citations issued to drivers of these cars, though not an overall reduction in citations. The group claims victory, citing the reduction in traffic violations for this particular style of car, but ignores the fact that the small number of bad drivers who previously drove the cosmetically incorrect cars now simply drive other cars (and do so just as recklessly). The overall violation rate remains the same as it would have without the ban. But by selectively taking a very small part of the statistics out of context, the organization attempts to manipulate the masses into believing the legislation had a positive effect on public safety, when it has actually had virtually no detectable effect at all.

The N.I.J. report cited by Brady also makes quite a few other significant points, such as:
"A number of factors—including the fact that the banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country...posed challenges in discerning the effects of the ban." [emphasis added]
"...about half the banned makes and models were rifles, which are hard to conceal for criminal use."
"...the banned guns are used in only a small fraction of gun crimes; even before the ban, most of them rarely turned up in law enforcement agencies’ requests to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) to trace the sales histories of guns recovered in criminal investigations." [emphasis added]
"...other analyses using a variety of national and local data sources found no clear ban effects on certain types of murders that were thought to be more closely associated with the rapid-fire features of assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines. The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds." [emphasis added]
"There were several reasons to expect, at best, a modest ban effect on criminal gun injuries and deaths. First, studies before the ban generally found that between less than 1 and 8 percent of gun crimes involved assault weapons, depending on the specific definition and data source used." [emphasis added]
"Murders of police by offenders armed with assault weapons declined from an estimated 16 percent of gun murders of police in 1994 and early 1995 to 0 percent in the latter half of 1995 and early 1996. However, such incidents are sufficiently rare that the available data do not permit a reliable assessment of whether this contributed to a general reduction in gun murders of police."
"Given the limited use of the banned guns and magazines in gun crimes, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on outcomes such as the gun murder rate is almost certainly too small to detect statistically..." [emphasis added]
"The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated."
This report, despite being sponsored by Federal government during the Clinton administration, clearly presents significantly more evidence that proves why the ban should not be renewed than it does supporting the ban. If you are interested in reading the entire report, we've made it available here.

Summary
It would seem then that the only folks affected by this silly bit of legislation are the honest, law-abiding citizens who own guns. Given the gun control objective of disarming citizens, we must now draw the line in the sand and state unequivocally, “Not my rights, not again!”
February 24th, 2007  
Marinerhodes
 
 
When I hear people talk about this I am of mixed minds.

I can see the need to prevent even a small encroachment of our right to arm ourselves. This is about the only reason why I would protest any ban on any kind of firearm.

What gives me a small pause is that I can not see the need for the average citizen to have access to, or ownership of, a fully automatic weapon.
--
The Effects of the Ban on Crime
February 24th, 2007  
5.56X45mm
 
 
Because every single legally owned full automatic weapon has not been used in any crime since 1934. Because restricting the rights of the legal citizen does not stop criminals from getting items made illegal because they are criminals and they don't care about what is legal and what is not.
February 24th, 2007  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marinerhodes
When I hear people talk about this I am of mixed minds.

I can see the need to prevent even a small encroachment of our right to arm ourselves. This is about the only reason why I would protest any ban on any kind of firearm.

What gives me a small pause is that I can not see the need for the average citizen to have access to, or ownership of, a fully automatic weapon.
It is probably the same thing that drives a 60 year old man to ride a 600cc trailbike. I enjoy riding, he enjoys owning and firing his weapons.

Purely and simple,- Pleasure in owning and using fine things.
February 24th, 2007  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
It is probably the same thing that drives a 60 year old man to ride a 600cc trailbike. I enjoy riding, he enjoys owning and firing his weapons.

Purely and simple,- Pleasure in owning and using fine things.
That is one reason I would support the removal of the ban.

But on the flip side of that coin I still can not see the need for your average citizen to own one. Not the word is need not want.
February 24th, 2007  
senojekips
 
 
If we could only have the things in life that we needed we would live quite well no doubt, but it would be a pretty boring life. What would come next? Things like automobiles would be limited in their power to weight ratio and speed limited such that they could not exceed the speed limit. As has been pointed out countless times automobiles kill far more than firearms and think of the gas that would be saved, you could get 60mpg out of your new 10 HP car.

Prisoners in jail are given what they need.

By the same token, I can see where you are coming from and would agree that not every person who merely wants an assault weapon should be allowed to have one. There are people out there who shouldn't be allowed to breed either, but the question is, how do we decide who gets the privilege to do these things?

The government have just put it all in the "Too hard basket". Forget peoples pleasures and rights, it's easier just to ban them.
February 24th, 2007  
Wallabies
 
You can't compare firearms to automobiles. The entire world economy would crash if automobiles were to be banned, not so with firearms.

Weapons designed for military use are just that, for military use. Sure you all served and loved to go to the range but you are out of the service now and it's time to let it go. I'm sure most of you got out before serving up to 55 years old so you still could of had years of pleasure. Armies are required to keep their weaponry in armouries, why not the same for civilians?
February 24th, 2007  
Bugfatty
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallabies
Weapons designed for military use are just that, for military use.
Just about every type of gun design out there was originally designed for military use.
February 24th, 2007  
senojekips
 
 
Wallabies you did an excellent job of misrepresenting what I said in an effort to improve your argument. What I said was:
Quote:
Things like automobiles would be limited in their power to weight ratio and speed limited such that they could not exceed the speed limit. As has been pointed out countless times automobiles kill far more than firearms and think of the gas that would be saved, you could get 60mpg out of your new 10 HP car.
There are few reason why automobiles need all 200+HP to drive down the road, or need to be able to do 120 MPH.

As I said there are plenty of legitimate reasons why limited HP and speed should could be enforced. The improvement in the road toll and the fuel savings would save many billions of dollars a year, not to mention the death and destruction.

My point was, as if you didn't understand. There are many things that people desire and want without any real "need".

Whenever this type of argument arises we always see the selfish views of those with no interest in the subject come to the surface. What is it called here in Australia? "I'm alright Jack"

In answer to your second comment about armouries, what do you call the 1.2 ton steel safe with (category 1) Chubb locks in my back shed, and the second hidden locked steel box elsewhere that contained all of my ammo and bolts to my weapons.

Of course the Forces keep their weapons in armouries because the weapons do not belong to the individual, they are the responsibility of the government, and so they lock them up as they do any "attractive" portable items.
 


Similar Topics
The Use of "Assault Weapons" in Crime
France to impose smoking ban from 2007
Crime in Britain in 2003 (Or "How to Create a Violent Society")
Australian MP backs headscarf ban